The City of Fredericksburg Zoning Board of Adjustment on Wednesday tabled a request to allow a 67.5-square-foot, 12-foot-tall multi-tenant monument sign that would serve three separate lots within a commercial development.
The board delayed action after staff and members debated whether the property’s subdivision and site-plan approvals created a hardship that would justify a variance from sign-height and square-footage limits in the city’s sign code.
Board members and staff said the sign package is intended to identify three businesses in a multi-parcel development that includes a Chick-fil-A and Discount Tire; the applicant asked for a single, coordinated monument sign rather than three separate tenant signs. The applicant’s representative, Stephanie Stewart, said a multi-tenant monument would reduce the number of separate signs and maintenance obligations while maintaining name panels for each tenant.
The board heard from a staff member identified as the director of development services, who described the case as CBA 2025-05 and said staff had reviewed the site plan and the application materials. The staff member said the subdivision and site-plan approvals appear to be the reason the third lot was created without separate public street frontage and that site-plan approvals sometimes include sign packages, meaning the property’s approvals may have established constrained conditions on sign placement. “From an aesthetic standpoint … I would much rather have one sign on-site than three monument signs running along that create potential line-of-sight issues,” the staff member said.
Board members pressed whether the owner created the circumstance that the applicant now calls a hardship. One member noted that the development was carved into multiple legal lots and said that carving could be viewed as a choice by the owner, not a unique hardship. Another member asked whether C-2 zoning in other parts of the city allows signs up to 15 feet; staff said multi-tenant facilities in C-2 can be allowed taller signs under certain circumstances but said the board could request a confirmation of code specifics before acting.
No public commenters signed up on the item. After discussion the board moved to table the application and requested additional information, including documentation showing whether prior planning staff recommended the sign approach at the time of site-plan approval and clear confirmation of the underlying code allowances for multi-tenant signs in the C-2 district. The board’s final announcement was: “We will table ZBA 2025-05 until the next meeting.”
The board did not reach a decision on the merits of the variance; the case remains pending and will return to a future meeting with the requested clarifications.